Suchergebnisse

The objective of this work is to investigate how Common Agricultural Policy's (CAP) direct payments influence the development of farm structures and therefore performance and income disparities between farms. In this study the focus is put on the comparison of impacts of changes in direct payments distribution on the agricultural sector considering 1) the decoupling model, i.e. either a regional area payment, a historic payment or a hybrid payment system from 2005; 2) the level and design of modulation, i.e. cuts in Pillar I payments relative or not to farm size and; 3) yearly cuts in Pillar I payments for all farms from 2013 parallel to increases in Pillar II payments. Outcomes of policy changes are analysed regarding their impact on farm structures, land use, land markets and agricultural production. Distributive effects of direct payments and agricultural incomes among farms are compared. The analyses performed in this study provide a panorama of impacts of CAP reforms on the agricultural sector. ; Ziel der Arbeit ist es zu untersuchen, wie die Direktzahlungen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) die Entwicklung der Betriebsstrukturen und dadurch Leistungs- und Einkommensdisparitäten zwischen den Betrieben beeinflusst. Der Schwerpunkt dieser Arbeit liegt im Vergleich der Auswirkungen der Verteilung der Direktzahlungen auf die Landwirtschaft. Dabei werden folgende drei Politikmaßnahmen betrachtet: 1) die Art der Entkopplung der Direktzahlungen im Rahmen der Fischler Reform, d.h. Regionalmodel, Betriebsmodel bzw. Hybridmodel; 2) das Niveau und die Ausgestaltung der Modulation, d.h. die Kürzung der Direktzahlungen in Abhängigkeit der Betriebsgröße bzw. unabhängig davon und 3) eine schrittweise Reduzierung der Direktzahlungen (1. Säule) ab 2013 für alle Betriebe parallel zu einer Aufstockung der Zahlungen der zweiten Säule. In der Analyse dieser Politiken werden insbesondere die Auswirkungen auf die Betriebsstrukturen, die Landnutzung, den Bodenmarkt und die Produktion berücksichtigt. Des Weiteren werden Auswirkungen auf die Verteilung der Direktzahlungen und Einkommen zwischen den Betrieben untersucht. Die durchgeführten Untersuchungen geben somit einen Überblick über die Auswirkungen der letzten GAP-Reformen auf die Landwirtschaft.

International audience ; AbstractThe 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) introduced compulsory 'greening' measures with the goal to mitigate environmental degradation caused by intensive agriculture. This paper aims to investigate how the implementation of the Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) obligation will affect regional agricultural development, the economic performance of farms and land use (including choices of EFA measures) in two representative EU regions. The research approach combines agent-based modelling (ABM) with stakeholder interactions to evaluate how farmers are likely to adapt to the new policy framework and the implications for their behaviour of the different components of the EFA obligation. Our results show that structural impacts of EFA measures are minor in both regions. The most preferred alternatives (fallow land in Sweden and catch crops in Germany) are income preserving for farmers rather than being effective for improving the environment. However, general concerns by farmers for biodiversity and the potential benefits for developing sustainable agriculture were revealed during the stakeholder workshops. We conclude that the large flexibility in choice of measures, watering down of the EFA regulations, implementation at the farm scale and lack of spatial targeting will all but eliminate any potential environmental benefits of the greening measures and subsequently, undermine farmers' and citizens' confidence in the CAP and its makers.

AbstractThe EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has had limited success in mitigating agriculture's environmental degradation. In this paper we simulate the impacts of the 2013 "greening" reform on biodiversity and ecosystem services in environmentally contrasting landscapes. We do this by integrating an agent‐based model of structural change with spatial ecological production functions, and show that the reform will likely fail to deliver substantial environmental benefits. Our study implies that greening measures need to be tailored to local conditions and priorities, to generate environmental improvements. Such spatial targeting of measures is though incompatible with the design of a common direct payments scheme.

The EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has had limited success in mitigating agriculture's environmental degradation. In this paper we simulate the impacts of the 2013 "greening" reform on biodiversity and ecosystem services in environmentally contrasting landscapes. We do this by integrating an agent-based model of structural change with spatial ecological production functions, and show that the reform will likely fail to deliver substantial environmental benefits. Our study implies that greening measures need to be tailored to local conditions and priorities, to generate environmental improvements. Such spatial targeting of measures is though incompatible with the design of a common direct payments scheme.

Rural areas are becoming increasingly differentiated and gradually losing their agricultural specificity. They now need to support the coexistence of two logical approaches to occupation of their space: one based on the supply of agricultural and forestry products, the other on the various demands from local residents and seasonal tourists. Under these conditions the roles of agriculture, forestry, and tourism industry are evolving; the focus is no longer simply on supplying market goods while limiting the impacts of this supply on negative external factors but now also on participating in land development and meeting the manifold expectations of society. The paper analyses EU policies related to multifunctional land use activities on the national and regional level. The policy framework within which multifunctionality of land use activities is realized is determined by three EU policies, namely the Cohesion Policy, Rural Development Policy, and Enlargement Policy. The paper focus on six cases: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Germany, France and UK. Three of the case study sites (in Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Croatia) were/are influenced by the financial instruments of the Enlargement policies (PHARE, SAPARD, ISPA, IPA). The impact of EU policies is assessed in three domains – economic, social and environment. The scope of impact of the major driving forces for multifunctional land use activities is assessed and analyzed.

Rural areas are becoming increasingly differentiated and gradually losing their agricultural specificity. They now need to support the coexistence of two logical approaches to occupation of their space: one based on the supply of agricultural and forestry products, the other on the various demands from local residents and seasonal tourists. Under these conditions the roles of agriculture, forestry, and tourism industry are evolving; the focus is no longer simply on supplying market goods while limiting the impacts of this supply on negative external factors but now also on participating in land development and meeting the manifold expectations of society. The paper analyses EU policies related to multifunctional land use activities on the national and regional level. The policy framework within which multifunctionality of land use activities is realized is determined by three EU policies, namely the Cohesion Policy, Rural Development Policy, and Enlargement Policy. The paper focus on six cases: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Germany, France and UK. Three of the case study sites (in Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Croatia) were/are influenced by the financial instruments of the Enlargement policies (PHARE, SAPARD, ISPA, IPA). The impact of EU policies is assessed in three domains – economic, social and environment. The scope of impact of the major driving forces for multifunctional land use activities is assessed and analyzed. Keywords: Multifunctionality, EU policy, Rural Development

As part of a 'fitness check' evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), completed in autumn 2017, we conducted an in depth literature review to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of the CAP on biodiversity (BD) and ecosystem services (ESS). Beyond instruments that are designated towards the protection of BD and ESS, such as agri-environment(-climate) schemes (AECM), greening, and cross compliance (CC), we considered and evaluated non-designated instruments such as Direct Payments, that likely have indirect effects on BD and ESS by affecting land-use changes, farm structure and management. Although literature suggests that AECM can be locally effective (1), their effectiveness at the EU level remains limited due to a restricted budget and extent, low uptake and acceptance by farmers, lack of spatial design, and poor implementation in many cases. Greening measures are both ineffective and cost-inefficient since most farmers are either exempt or can comply with the greening requirements without any action (2). Additionally, administrative requirements bias farmers toward choosing the simplest and least effective measures (3) and management requirements and spatial design are lacking. With respect to supporting farming systems that can be considered as sustainable, our review indicates that the CAP offers adequate support to promote organic farming, but much greater support is given to unsustainable farming systems. Moreover, the protection of High Nature Value farming systems is scarce and inadequate. Concerning ESS, current measures (AECM, CC) are somewhat effective with respect to soil protection and water quality but the performance of the CAP is very low with regard to climate issues by failing to address the most important sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, namely livestock production and nitrogen fertilization. Overall, the CAP's design and implementation poorly takes up existing knowledge and experience with respect to necessary interventions and best indicators, and its various instruments operate with little coherence (e.g. AECM and organic farming) or even in conflict (e.g. AECM and greening). Moreover, the CAP only marginally addresses the EU's global ecological footprint and its contribution to land-use changes outside of Europe. Thus, the global efficiency and effectiveness of the CAP in terms of BD and ESS remains weak. Our literature review indicates the availability of a wealth of evidence to inform current and future policy design processes. Integration of all available knowledge, in collaboration with the scientific community, will be essential for achieving higher effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence within instruments and among the CAP and the EU's biodiversity strategy. A much more inclusive, transparent and evidence-based process will be necessary if the European Commission wishes to address the concerns over the CAP's performance with respect to public goods. ; peerReviewed